[Linux-aus] Name change election results..

[Silvia Pfeiffer]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Russell Stuart <
russell-linuxaus at stuart.id.au> wrote:

> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 14:21 +1100, John Ferlito wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 12:28:12PM +1000, Russell Stuart wrote:
> > > The right solution to me would be to go with the original plan: run a
> > > second election with only those top three.  Like Chris I am a bit
> > > mystified as to why that isn't happening.
> >
> > Because we announced that we would only follow the rest of the process
> > if "No name change" didn't win.
>
> Fair enough.
>

Maybe.



> In retrospect if the wording was "didn't get an outright majority" I
> would be happier.  "Winning" with a top 3 optional preferential voting
> is a fuzzy concept, particularly when like this case no one got a
> majority.  Maybe that's something we can do if we have another vote like
> this.
>

IMO the problem with the process was that two questions were mingled up:
1. should we retain the name? and
2. which three names do we want to vote on if we want a new name?

Because of this, the existing LA name turned into one of the options of a
"new name" rather than being a filter of whether to go for voting.

I can't believe this would have been intended by the council.

In the interest of fairness, I would therefore suggest to go forward with
the second round of voting on a "new name" in which the top three (or maybe
four) names) are set as choice, which includes "LA". This will then give a
much fairer statement of whether the community actually does want to keep
the old name.

Otherwise we will always have the question hanging around about "what if
the voting process had been different...".

Regards,
Silvia.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20130103/8c793373/attachment.htm